The DN of the Debate. We have a riksrättsprocess, as it is in the united states in the united states?

the Charges against the president of the united states, is that he has delayed the disbursement of military assistance to Ukraine, in order to get at a political opponent. Trump also accused of misleading congress.

< a riksrättsprocess, removed, as it is in the united states have occurred in the united states?

In Sweden, the government could not be accused, solely in order to delay the payment. Parliament make is certainly the decision of the central government budget. However, the government is not obligated to pay any item of expenditure. The budget is set at the government's disposal. If the government considers it to be justified, it may, subject to the usual parliamentary accountability, to suspend or to refuse to make a payment. The government's enforcement of the committee on the anslagsbeslut is not subject to review by the courts.

if any of the equivalent happening in Sweden, the government can be held accountable for having violated the rules of objectivity and impartiality of the judiciary, and in order to comply with its obligation to submit documentation and provide correct information that is the basis of the review.

The general question is how the legislative branch (the congress, respectively, the parliament) are able to control the executive branch (the president of the republic, the respective governments). The american presidentsystemet forms, a full form of the separation of powers (checks and balances). The parliamentary system is applied in Sweden is based on a form of the separation of powers.

There is a reason to be critical of the use of the so-called announcement. The government is not legally bound to comply with such notices, however, that political pressure can be substantial. Thus, penetrating the parliament in the government of the ruling power.

< A vilsegången journalist, claimed recently that the ”powers that be in Sweden at the Swedish parliament” (GP, 24/1). It is, fortunately, do not. Sweden is not of the state but in a constitutional democracy. The parliament should not do just about anything.

the Parliament enacts laws, decides on taxes and the budget. Another important task is to examine the governance and public administration.

the Government in control of the kingdom. The state authorities, to obey, with only a few exceptions, to the government, and that it is the government that appoints the top managers, who appoint the investigation and the issuing of regulations in terms of the regulations.

the Parliament of the power of their votes to the given limits. The general rule is that the judicial functions and administrative tasks not to be fulfilled by the parliament. Parliament must, therefore, make a general decision and not to decide how the law applied by the courts in each of the government and the local authorities.

Maktdelningstanken is based on the assumption that the power does not have to be a zero-sum game. By means of a constitutionally-regulated functional separation, the different branches of the power of the state to develop its full strength.

the Parliament may, by a vote of no confidence to force the government or an individual minister's resignation. This control is missing in a presidential, as the united states. Removed functions in practice as a substitute for a vote of no confidence.

a legal review of the state's authorities to parliament by the parliamentary ombudsman. Found reviews the the government also has a legal dimension.

Strangely enough, it is brought back in the day, the idea of a return to a time of a weak government. It is as if we have forgotten the hard-earned lessons of the frihetstidens ständervälde, the revolutionary reveries of konventstyre and mellankrigstidens of the parliamentary disaster.

the Parliament to prosecute the minister, for the offence in the service. A prosecution is decided upon by the constitutional committee and reviewed by the Supreme court. It's the closest equivalent to the united states. The legal control of the government, has not been used in modern times.

Strangely enough, it is brought back in the day, the idea of a return to a time of a weak government. It is as if we have forgotten the hard-earned lessons of the frihetstidens ständervälde, the revolutionary reveries of konventstyre and mellankrigstidens of the parliamentary disaster.

But in parliament, the task of which is to control the government, weaken the government. The inability to find his or her role as an opposition party, appears to be evenly spread across the political spectrum.

the democrats took in the fall of 2013, the initiative led to the constitution as the lowest point in modern Swedish history. The main opposition party, pushed through a change in the world military draft. Even if a tax cut is stopped, and the central government, thus strengthened, was on the constitutional principle of the unitary framework of the state budget. The damage is exacerbated by the fact that the committee on the constitution said one thing, and the president's legal experts have a different story. The parliament's authority as the interpreter of the constitution, was a svårreparabel crack.

Now repeat the same process with the reversed partiroller. The current budget rules were made in the shadow of a deep economic crisis at the beginning of the 1990's. In our proposal, the Ekonomikommissionen was intended not only to solve the immediate problems, but also to establish stable rules of the game, and the sustainability of the institutions. In this context, it seems that our efforts have been in vain.

the Parliament exercises its option to collect the majority of the proposals that go against the will of a minority government on a variety of items. The government is not legally bound to comply with such notices, however, that political pressure can be substantial. Thus, penetrating the parliament in the government of the ruling power.

Through the use of committees, the right of initiative falls to the parliament, sometimes succumb to the temptation to act as a legislator on his own. However, it is the Government that has the expertise and the resources necessary for a robust and fair regulatory process.

the Parliament, concerned in part with the wrong things. Instead, in order to get out of the constitutional doubts of the chips should be kept at home, and the development of the vital tasks that the constitution requires.

the Parliament's task is to scrutinise and debate such proposals before decision-making. How many of these riksdagsdebatter to attract community-interest in the audience? The parliament could set for itself the goal of becoming the nation's most debattarena.

the government has a long way to go when it comes to the task of reviewing the governance and public administration. It's not just investigative journalists, which is necessary in order to uncover the abuse of power and waste. The parliament fail in its constitutional mandate to monitor and evaluate his or her own decisions.

the Parliament, the monitoring task is intended, ultimately, to learn from their mistakes and, thus, to show that the democratic form of superiority. By means of an open and self-critical review of the public authority to show that it is worthy of the trust of the citizens.
Link to a graphic